State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFState Farm in Insurance is building a new office complex which will have space for thousands of State Farm employees in the Dallas area, according to The Dallas Morning News. That’s not all the $1.5 billion development, CityLine, will include. The first phase of the complex will include three office towers, a shopping center, a hotel, and apartments. Opening is expected in early 2015.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?
March 09, 2020 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe design-build delivery method offers many benefits to owners. Among the cited benefits are that projects are generally completed faster, at a lower cost, by allowing innovative approaches through early and continual contractor involvement in the design process. The design contractor serves as a single point of contact responsible for both the design and construction of the project.
The Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) utilized the design-build procurement method on the largest project ($2 billion) of its type in the state of Washington: the Highway 99 Tunnel, which was finished almost three years late after the tunnel-boring machine (“Bertha”) broke down six years ago. The sorted tale of the SR-99 Tunnel Project was the source of many of this firm’s blog articles.[1] The State of Washington staunchly maintained that the design-build contract protected its taxpayers from covering the repair costs to the tunnel-boring machine when it broke down in 2013. Bertha did not resume tunneling for almost two years, putting on hold removal of the Alaska Way viaduct and rebuilding of the Seattle Waterfront without an elevated highway.
In December 2013, the contractor for the project, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), contended that a 110-foot long 8” steel pipe which Bertha hit caused the breakdown. That pipe had been installed for groundwater testing by WSDOT in 2002 during its preliminary engineering for the viaduct replacement project. The project’s Dispute Review Board (“DRB”) composed of three tunneling experts found that the pipe constituted a “differing site condition” for which the State was responsible to disclose to contractors. The Board, whose views were non-binding, did not opine about how much damage the undisclosed pipe cost.[2] In other words, the mere fact that a differing site condition occurred did not establish that there was a causal connection between the damages which STP was seeking (in excess of $600 million) and the differing site condition (the 8” steel pipe which WSDOT lawyers at trial derisively referred to as “nothing more than a toothpick for Bertha’s massive cutter head”). STP maintained that Bertha had made steady progress except for three days immediately after hitting the pipe. It didn’t help the contractors’ case that during the discovery phase of the two-month trial, WSDOT lawyers uncovered documents showing that the contractor’s tunnel workers encountered and logged the pipe before digging began.[3]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
john.ahlers@acslawyers.com
Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars
June 29, 2017 —
Ceslie Blass - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCWhile we avoid using this blog as a platform for self-promotion, we recently received share-worthy distinctions, which both flatter and humble us. We invite you, our loyal readers, to celebrate in our success, which in great measure is due to you.
John P. Ahlers, one of the firm's founding partners, was ranked third overall across all practicing industries in Washington 2017 Super Lawyers and founding partner Paul R. Cressman, Jr. was ranked in the Top 100. The following other firm members were also recognized as Super Lawyers: Founding partner Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen (Partner), Brett M. Hill (Partner), and Lawrence Glosser (Partner). In addition, Ryan W. Sternoff (Partner), James R. Lynch (Partner), Tymon Berger (Associate), and Lindsay (Taft) Watkins (Associate) were selected as Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Over half of the firm's lawyers received Super Lawyers distinction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ceslie Blass, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogCalifornia literally wrote the book on construction defect litigation. Construction defects began to surface after World War II due to cheap track homes being constructed haphazardly on a large scale. Throughout the 1960s, developers began utilizing the services of subcontractors to build massive developments. Rather than having their own employees perform the work, developers began relying more heavily on the specialty subcontractors to perform quality control functions. In 1969, the California Supreme Court expanded liability for developers with respect to residential housing through the concept of strict liability for mass produced homes. Strict liability defendants in construction defect cases may include builders of mass-produced homes, building site developers, component part manufacturers, and material suppliers. Courts have noted that there is little distinction between the “mass production and sale of homes and the mass production and sale of automobiles, and the pertinent overriding policy considerations are the same.” Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal. App. 2d 224, 227 (1969). Accordingly, developers of mass-produced tract homes may be held strictly liable whether or not there is privity of contract. Ibid. Courts have held, however, that there is no strict liability against contractors or sub-contractors. See Ranchwood Communities v. Jim Beat Construction (1996) 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 386; La Jolla Village Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 261 Cal.Rptr. 146. Within ten years, attorneys in California were using strict liability theories to seek compensation for homeowners. The initial strict liability lawsuits in California in the 70s and 80s generally applied to condominium projects. The Construction defect “industry” began to take off in the 1980s due to the housing boom and the enforcement of strict liability claims by the courts.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Legislative Update: Bid Protest Law Changes to Benefit Contractors
November 24, 2019 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCA new statute became effective July 28, 2019 that benefits contractors who have bid protests in Washington. A bid protest is the only way for disappointed bidders to challenge irregularities in the public bidding process on public works projects. Bid protests ensure the integrity of the public bidding system and are the contractor’s only remedy if its bid is improperly rejected or the winning bidder has errors in its bid that render it nonresponsive.
Under the old law, a contractor was required to submit their bid protest within 2 days after the bid opening. The problem was that a contractor often does not know the basis to protest an award without seeing the other bids to determine whether the winning bid was responsive. Many owners provide copies of the bids if requested at the bid opening, but some contractors found that owners were refusing to provide copies of the other bids until after the 2-day protest period expired.
The new law, which passed this last Legislative session[1], states that a contractor has two days after the bid opening to either submit a written protest or request copies of the competing bids. If the contractor requests copies of the competing bids from the owner, the contractor then has until 2 days after the competing bids are provided by the owner before the contractor is required to submit its bid protest.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors
August 13, 2019 —
Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocsPayment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment.
A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and
Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP
Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717
April 12, 2021 —
Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogCalifornia Civil Code section 1717 entitles the prevailing party to attorneys’ fees “[i]n any action on a contract,” where the contract provides for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, regardless of whether the prevailing party is the party specified in the contract or not. But what about an action that alleges tort causes of action against an alter ego of a contracting party but that does not include a breach of contract claim against the alter ego? This was the question facing the California Court of Appeal in 347 Group, Inc. v. Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 209.
In that case, the plaintiff 347 Group sued and obtained a default judgment for breach of contract against defendant Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. Id. at 211–12. 347 Group had also sued Philip Hawkins individually as well as Design-Build, Inc., the company Hawkins founded after putting Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. into bankruptcy. Id. at 212. 347 Group originally alleged claims for breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and conspiracy against Hawkins and Design-Build, seeking to establish that Hawkins and Design-Build were the alter egos of the contracting party, Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc., but later dismissed the breach of contract claim. Id. Hawkins and Design-Build eventually prevailed on the tort causes of action, and moved for attorneys’ fees. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Alleged Defective Water Pump Leads to 900K in Damages
January 13, 2014 —
CDJ STAFFA lawsuit filed by Liberty Mutual on behalf of their client, Turner Construction, alleges that defects in the installation of a water pump lead to $900,000 in costs for a building in New Jersey. They are seeking compensation from Triangle Plumbing. Law360 quotes the complaint, which states “as a result of Triangle’s failure to provide a complete, functional plumbing system at the property as required by the subcontract agreement, Triangle has breached the specific scope of work provision of the subcontract agreement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
